did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

1) You can't read the greek upon which all the arguments are based
2) you haven't actually read any scholarship arguing for q. All you've read is short statements that summarize the more complex issues and present the consensus view.

But despite this, you have no problem jumping on the consensus bandwagon. Why? Because you aren't the unbiased critical investigator you pretend to be. You are perfectly happy to accept consensus when it fits your preconceived views.

Oh no, I've been exposed by Captain Fiction.

 

[outhouse]

Must be like lucky charms, reading greek is magically delicious LOL

 

[Oberon]

Oh no, I've been exposed by Captain Fiction.

Show I'm wrong. Explain why your acceptance of Q isn't just leaping on the bandwagon. Snide sarcastic remarks as a defense really don't do much to show you aren't a complete hypocrite.

 

[dogsgod]

show i'm wrong. Explain why your acceptance of q isn't just leaping on the bandwagon. Snide sarcastic remarks as a defense really don't do much to show you aren't a complete hypocrite.

.



Q?




------------.

 

[outhouse]

this is exactly like blind faith creation. Resorting to faith in greek as apposed to the reality of content.

the greek original content is not that far off the original translation we have. We can study other proffessionals work if we need slight differences pointed out in the fiction.

 

[Oberon]

this is exactly like blind faith creation. Resorting to faith in greek as apposed to the reality of content.the greek original content is not that far off the original translation we have. We can study other proffessionals work if we need slight differences pointed out in the fiction.

Are you even aware what I am asking dogsgod about? Do you know what Q or the two-source hypothesis are?

Dogsgod has repeatedly asserted the consensus means nothing. This is the same consensus he relies on to accept the two hypothesis mentioned about. It has nothing to do with "the greek original."

 

[dogsgod]

Q? Two-source hypothesis? What is that in English please?

 

[outhouse]

Do you know what Q or the two-source hypothesis are?

yes i do

 

[Oberon]

Q? Two-source hypothesis? What is that in English please?

Still waiting for you to explain how you aren't just leaping on the consensus bandwagon when it suits you.

 

[dogsgod]

What have you got against consensus bandwagon fallacies? They're fun to ride, you know that.

 

[Oberon]

What have you got against consensus bandwagon fallacies? They're fun to ride, you know that.

Still waiting. Or are these little comments your way of saying you realize that you qare backed in a corner and it is obvious you are simply a hypocrite, but you can't really admit that, and you can't not respond (apparently), so the only alternative is to dodge the question with sarcasm?

 

[dogsgod]

Still waiting. Or are these little comments your way of saying you realize that you qare backed in a corner and it is obvious you are simply a hypocrite, but you can't really admit that, and you can't not respond (apparently), so the only alternative is to dodge the question with sarcasm?

Put the words synoptic and problem together and I just get all confused, what can I say? It's like asking if a book is written in English, a simple yes or no question and everything is just so complicated and confusing.

 

[Oberon]

Put the words synoptic and problem together and I just get all confused, what can I say? It's like asking if a book is written in English, a simple yes or no question and everything is just so complicated and confusing.

You can pretend all you like that that was an honest question. Of course, if the fact that the title was in english didn't give it away, google I'm sure would have.

But it wasn't an honest question.

The point remains: You have claimed that you don't follow consensus and it isn't necessary to pay attention to the experts in the field, but you can't explain why you leap on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and Markan priority.

 

[outhouse]

whats wrong with accepting markan priority, most scholars do. The "bandwagon" doesnt make it wrong

 

[Oberon]

whats wrong with accepting markan priority, most scholars do. The "bandwagon" doesnt make it wrong

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you don't have expertise in a particular area, and there is a consensus among experts on some issue, your best bet for accuracy is going with the consensus. There isn't anything wrong in what dogsgod is doing by accepting the Q and two-source hypothesis because most scholars do.

The problem, however, is that the fact that Jesus was a historical figure is EVEN MORE WIDELY accepted among experts. Dogsgod has criticized going with the consensus and jumping on the bandwagon, but that's exactly what he is doing.

I'm not critical of him for doing it, but for only doing it when it suits his needs.

 

[dogsgod]

You can pretend all you like that that was an honest question. Of course, if the fact that the title was in english didn't give it away, google I'm sure would have.

But it wasn't an honest question.

The point remains: You have claimed that you don't follow consensus and it isn't necessary to pay attention to the experts in the field, but you can't explain why you leap on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and Markan priority.

So, when AA reads a book in English it's wonderful, the skies are blue and the birds are chirping, but when dog reads English books:

So why posit Q or dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark? You aren't even in a position to evaluate the arguments involved, because they are based on an analysis of the greek you can't read. There are and continue to be very serious scholars who have presented detailed arguments against Q and Markan priority. And once again, most of the work and scholarship which was used to build consensus is from german scholarship that isn't available in English.

So if you can't assess the strengths of the arguments for or against, because you lack the most necessary skill involved (reading greek), why do you follow the consensus?

The point is that you can't evaluate any of the arguments because you can't read greek.

and more importantly this goes rather over your head as you can't read greek

More importantly, you could read english scholarship on this issue until you are blue in the face but I wouldn't hep YOU determine because you can't read the greek upon which the arguments are based.

You can't read the greek to determine the arguments for Q or markan priority

blindly following the consensus you insult because you can't read greek

and you can't assess them anyway because you don't read greek

Yes! Have you read "The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg et al?

I had the pleasure of talking with him at length about his many works on Q and my dissertation last November (time flies!!).

Anyway, that's the most excellent work on Q that will be produced for quite a while - Kloppenborg has sworn it off - it's an Abington commentary, published in 2007 if memory serves.

That's the international Q project's work right (robinson, hoffmann, and kloppenborg)? I checked it out a while ago but never read the whole thing. It's on my to do list. I did read Kloppenborgs Excavating Q.

 

[Oberon]

So, when AA reads a book in English it's wonderful, the skies are blue and the birds are chirping, but when dog reads English books:

1) Angellous can read greek. So he can actually follow arguments based on analysis of the greek
2) There is a difference between reading any book which happens to summarize info on Q, even if it was written by an expert like Crossan or Mack, and reading a book (in any language) which is intended to explain in detail the arguments for Q and/or Markan priority. You haven't read these, nor have you read the works expressing the minority view, so you aren't even familiar with the detailed arguments for or against, let alone able to evaluate them
3) You accept Q and Markan priority not out of some critical investigation but because a few books told you that it is widely accepted by experts, and as it doesn't go against your preconceived views, you were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[dogsgod]

I've read plenty about the synoptic problem and the Q hypothesis, but why should I bother to provide my English only sources to a blow hard such yourself?

 

[Oberon]

I've read plenty about the synoptic problem and the Q hypothesis, but why should I bother to provide my English only sources to a blow hard such yourself?

Well it would help to show you weren't the complete hypocrite you are. If you could show you were actually familiar with the scholarship designed to demonstrate the existence of Q and Markan priority, and could address the arguments by the experts who don't accept either hypothesis, then it would at least show that while you can't actually really evaluate the arguments without accepting their views on the greek, at least you didn't just leap on the bandwagon you criticize so much.

 

[dogsgod]

Besides, where did I say I accept Q and Markan priority as absolutes anyways?